If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

In the rest of the world we live in, 99% of the corporations and businesses that offer health benefit packages pay only for the principal employee, not his spouse or family. That, usually is paid for, out of pocket, by the employee while getting a "group" discount as a member through his/her employment. The Fruits, Nuts and Flakes want the taxpayer to pay for their health care which is so high they can't/won't pay for it . . And it's their lifestyle that causes it to be so high . .

Gay's (especially Males) have a much higher incidence of AIDS and it's co-inciding illnesses than does any other segment of society, either here or anyplace else in the world . . And the cocktail of drugs that are required, as well as general physician's care is far more expensive than for an average healthy human being . .

On the "Rights" thing. Perhaps, but not "Constitutional", thus, it's not the taxpayer's problem . . If you choose to gamble when swapping body fluids, then you ought to exercise the basic cautions or pay for the potential treatment that you may need if everything doesn't work out . .

It isn't my problem and I don't want it to become one . .

And . . howcome it is, you can declare a thread "redundant" and either merge or delete it while we can't, and we seem to have exactly no say in that . .

This thread IS redundant to the one that has been in the forum for over two years . . . And it discusses ALL the City Council's issues, which are . . . ?

Well, my question is this: If they allow benefits for gays, then must they also allow them for straight people who are living together without benefit of a certificate of civil union? The reason I ask is that homosexual unions are not legalized in Colorado, so to allow them benefits without allowing benefits for unmarried straight couples living together would be an act of discrimination. I wonder whether this is why City Council tabled the vote on that particular item.

Opinions expressed by me are mine only and are not in any way, shape, or form representative of the Pueblo Chieftain or Pueblo Community Forums.

And . . howcome it is, you can declare a thread "redundant" and either merge or delete it while we can't, and we seem to have exactly no say in that . .

Something about being an Administrator, Large.

If you're interested in a moderator position (it's strictly voluntary - I can't afford to pay anyone) you or any other interested participants are welcome to send me a private message or email about that for consideration. Moderators have the ability to do those things.

Meanwhile, the reason why this isn't redundant is that your thread focuses on spending, I didn't want to focus on that in this thread, I wanted to focus on the civil aspects of their decisions as opposed to the financial. For example, for the purposes of this particular topic, it would be how people's rights are affected (or not). By creating a separate thread both aspects of the topic can be discussed without losing focus of the site of that particular thread.

Opinions expressed by me are mine only and are not in any way, shape, or form representative of the Pueblo Chieftain or Pueblo Community Forums.

PS - Everyone here always has a say - by the way - whether you have the "power" to act on it may be a different story, but I pay attention to suggestions, none the less. So don't feel bad - all forum participants are important here and I'm not here to lord over anyone. Everyone's thoughts and ideas are important to me unless they involve booze or sex.

Opinions expressed by me are mine only and are not in any way, shape, or form representative of the Pueblo Chieftain or Pueblo Community Forums.

Well, my question is this: If they allow benefits for gays, then must they also allow them for straight people who are living together without benefit of a certificate of civil union? The reason I ask is that homosexual unions are not legalized in Colorado, so to allow them benefits without allowing benefits for unmarried straight couples living together would be an act of discrimination. I wonder whether this is why City Council tabled the vote on that particular item.

A point, perhaps. But that, also has nothing to do, particularily, with "Rights", but a whole lot to do with legal issues . . As you say, in Colorado, neither "Civil Unions" nor "Same Sex Marriages" are recognized as "legal" . . Thus, "Partners" aren't included as a legal definition for spousal rights or benefits . .

However, back to the Employer/Employee Health benefit I spoke of earlier. IF . . you are an employee getting your health care insurance from your employer, if your partner, better half, Boyfriend/Girlfriend are living in the same home/address, as far as I know, if you pay for it out of your pocket, most plans allow that person to be included . . Now, it may be different threough different companies and plans, but before my wife and I became that formally, I was insured through her job policy, although we had to pay about $600 per month, it was a lot cheaper than to take out an individual policy. By about half . .

In the case of the City Council's decision, my information (and that was confirmed by an article in yesterday's Chieftain) was that the refusal and tabling was about the cost. Which was what I brought up in the post about their spending . . One would think that anyone with half a brain would know that health insurance for gays is expensive, and group plans are generally discounted because 95% of those covered are healthy people of median working ages . . and considering the statistic that about 2-3% of the American Population is gay, and assuming that most employee groups maintain that average, doubling the number of gays being covered, should, double the cost and risk . .

Which brings me to ask, once more, What procedure does a politician go through to remove the part of the brain that dictates common sense once they attain public office?